Columbus and Millennials (university, to live in, moving)

[jbcmh81]

I know this topic was discussed a bit in another thread, but it got me thinking about where Columbus performs within its peer group and also in the Midwest generally. I looked at cities and the age group of 25-34, arguably the most important group of the Millennial generation.

Here is the link to the numbers on the 33 different cities I looked at: Millennials and the City- A Comparison | All Columbus, Ohio Data

The bottom line was that Columbus ranked in the top 5 in almost every metric I looked at, from current population to growth rates. It blew away cities you would think it would be behind, such as Portland, San Jose and Minneapolis, as well as some of the boom cities like Charlotte, Orlando and Las Vegas. It even attracted more than Chicago since 2010.

So for all the talk about Columbus' terrible transit and supposed suburban nature, it seems to be able to strongly attract people within the Millennial generation. In fact, almost 50% of the city's total population growth since 2010 has been within the 25-34 age group. That's pretty incredible, imo.

[steelers1523]

End of the day its a newer city with a big university and government jobs. There will always be an influx of young people.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I know this topic was discussed a bit in another thread, but it got me thinking about where Columbus performs within its peer group and also in the Midwest generally. I looked at cities and the age group of 25-34, arguably the most important group of the Millennial generation.

Here is the link to the numbers on the 33 different cities I looked at: Millennials and the City- A Comparison | All Columbus, Ohio Data

The bottom line was that Columbus ranked in the top 5 in almost every metric I looked at, from current population to growth rates. It blew away cities you would think it would be behind, such as Portland, San Jose and Minneapolis, as well as some of the boom cities like Charlotte, Orlando and Las Vegas. It even attracted more than Chicago since 2010.

So for all the talk about Columbus' terrible transit and supposed suburban nature, it seems to be able to strongly attract people within the Millennial generation. In fact, almost 50% of the city's total population growth since 2010 has been within the 25-34 age group. That's pretty incredible, imo.

These folks are moving there because of employment, not transit. Sh*tty transit means they drive cars in Columbus to get to their jobs. COL is lower. Portland, San Jose and most likely Minneapolis are more expensive. The other 3, who really wants to live in those places except for perhaps Charlotte.

Not a surprise about Chicago, stagnant employment, leading to stagnant population growth.

[SyraBrian]

Columbus has a lot more square mileage than almost all these other cities. Columbus is a mix of suburbs and city. Most of the other cities are purely city where there's very little room to build.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

Columbus has a lot more square mileage than almost all these other cities. Columbus is a mix of suburbs and city. Most of the other cities are purely city where there's very little room to build.

What does square mileage have to do with anything? If you are concerned that difference in population because of city size skews the numbers, that is why I included both percentages and % of population, which would not be affected by city size. Columbus is still near the top.

I would also argue that the majority of these cities are actually not all that densely built. And in terms of city density, Columbus is in the upper half of its peers.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by steelers1523

End of the day its a newer city with a big university and government jobs. There will always be an influx of young people.

That might get people to come, but not necessarily to stay. The numbers suggest that young people are staying after graduation, so there are obviously other factors at play.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

These folks are moving there because of employment, not transit. Sh*tty transit means they drive cars in Columbus to get to their jobs. COL is lower. Portland, San Jose and most likely Minneapolis are more expensive. The other 3, who really wants to live in those places except for perhaps Charlotte.

Not a surprise about Chicago, stagnant employment, leading to stagnant population growth.

There are quite a few cities on the list that would be cheaper to live than Columbus and which have good economies yet are doing worse to much worse on attracting this demographic.

[SyraBrian]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

What does square mileage have to do with anything? If you are concerned that difference in population because of city size skews the numbers, that is why I included both percentages and % of population, which would not be affected by city size. Columbus is still near the top.

I would also argue that the majority of these cities are actually not all that densely built. And in terms of city density, Columbus is in the upper half of its peers.

For some of these cities, there's no room in city proper. They're small and dense and the older folks love their city so much they're not moving out.

Portland has a 2.7% vacancy rate. It was 6.5% ten years ago. Columbus is at 4.7% and was at 13.5% ten years ago. A lot more available spots were able to be filled in Columbus.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

There are quite a few cities on the list that would be cheaper to live than Columbus and which have good economies yet are doing worse to much worse on attracting this demographic.

I was just going from the list you cited.

[bjimmy24]

Really not sure why "millennials" are just outright considered to be "good". I personally think more families in cities would be better than just a bunch of single 20 somethings. Because guess where these millennials go when they have a kid?

I get that 20 and 30 somethings do provide some energy and innovation. But I don't know, I'd be willing to bet that there are more millennials within five square miles where I'm writing this than in all of Columbus. They're not here because any vague concept of a city "did" anything to "attract" them. Plus, most of them will be leaving for somewhere else within a 1-3 years.